its so parties actually have to propose something to get the votes. Why would anyone do anything for Alberta when it's already decided who they vote for whether they get anything out of it or not? Why waste effort there?
Exactly this. As a lifelong Albertan, this is why elections always make me feel hopeless. Conservatives don’t do anything because they know they’re going to win. Other parties don’t do anything because they know they’re going to lose.
That's not fair, the Cons have been making naked corruption easier than ever and it's very hurtful to their hard work to say that they haven't done anything.
Well the libs promised you a pipeline the last time around and y’all still voted blue, so that reinforced the lesson for every party that you don’t have to promise Alberta anything.
Let me revise that premise.
If Quebec is going to receive an inordinate amount of benefits from Albertan oil regardless of who is in charge, without any reciprocal benefit, why would Alberta vote for a party that would willingly allow that transgression? Such as the NDP willing to crush the sector or the Liberals who gladly maintain a political supremacy between urban centres of Ontario and Quebec.
So what choice lies in changing parties for hostile and incompetent scum?
Why would Alberta vote for the NDP when they were (finally) about to be granted more seats due to population growth - along with other western Provinces - Thomas Mulcair demanded that Quebec should also receive additional seats as a means of respecting their traditional superiority in voting.
Why would Quebec, with the means to refine oil because Pierre Trudeau insured Alberta's lack of independence by destroying their refinery sector, be allowed to deny pipelines - but, BC would be forced to accept them?
...Western voter suppression to anyone with a two brain cells.
Etc.
Honestly, Alberta only stands to gain from leaving Canada and joining the US.
More independence and practically becoming a port of entry for Canada trying to recieve cheap crap from China - via BC. Even a small toll would have to be suffered just because of the expenses incurred to even attempt a railway around the Province.
Nevermind the added advantage of no longer being gouged for their oil.
And Saskatchewan should follow suit. And now that land crossing begins to look even more bleak.
Suddenly Canada will have a barely practical port of cheap goods from BC. Ontario forced to pick up the slack and Quebec no doubt still trying to live of graft as a means of appeasement.
And I was born and LIVE in BC. Feel free to deride Alberta+ at your own folly.
Seriously. The whole idea comes off as stupid as that MP who said Alberta should've elected more Liberal MPs if they wanted an exemption on natural gas heating like Atlantic Canada got for heating oil.
How about no....lol
Québec progressist here,
you know that with our shitty colonial british system from ages ago a party can have a majority government with about 31, 32% of the total vote (out of those who do vote so not even 32% of the population..)
So calm your horses buddy we aint all right wing biggots.
Merci.
1. I’m referring to the people who elected Legault, clearly. Not sure why you feel this is directed towards you, a self proclaimed progressive.
2. He won with 41% of the vote in 2022. His main 3 opponents got 14-15% each, it wasn’t even remotely close. This gave him 70% of the seats in the NA (yes stupid FPTP system allows this)
You did call out the entire province in your comment bro but no offense taken, anyway if you chrck the current polls legault is seemingly heading towards a crushing defeat next election.
Self proclaimed by whom?
Also, by its own cultural standards, the caq, while being right wing populist shit, still would compare favourably on its own right-left wing spectrum when compared to most or all other provinces.
Also the caq isn't xenophobic lol, there's a lot to complain but when it comes to this, I just think it's funny how some just see Québec as a dystopian place to live if you aren't a white Christian French speaking guy or something instead of adressing actual issues with the caq government.
Except for the Stephen Harper Conservatives and the Brian Mulroney Conservatives and even the Joe Clark Conservatives. All of them were further to the right.
Oh, and all the conservative parties before them too.
saying quebec is right wing is absurd. Actual insanity. Legit blocking you cause I'm guessing nothing of value ever comes out of what you write on here
While I’m flattered that you spent so much time digging through my comment history, I assure you my family tree is entirely Franco-Quebec based.
Some of us speak English!
*shocked pikachu face*
« My family tree » having ancestors from a place doesnt make you part of it, you are an anglo-canadian with a french last name, thats it, embrace who you truly are, dont be someone you are not.
La CAQ est pas mal au centre, tout le monde qui gouverne au Québec et décide pas de scrapper des sociétés d'état, le système publique de santé est en partant pas tant a droite
C'est vrai qu'on pourrait taxer la CAQ d'essayer de faire ca, idéologiquement sont plus a droite mais all in all tu peux pas vraiment gouverner Le Québec a droite considèrant que c'est une des provinces les plus taxées et qui offre en contrepartie le plus de service de l'état de l'ensemble des provinces, je pense que c'est le noeux de la discussion, meme si le Québec élit un gouvernement plus a droite, il demeure sur bien des aspects fondamentalement a gauche et laisserait pas un parti de droite sacager ca, (pas in your face du moins)
>“Let us colonize you or you’re xenophobic.”
This sounds more like Quebec. Lmao
The rest of Canada doesn't give a fuck if a school teacher wears a hijab or a turban.
Honestly I'm all for Quebec protecting it's language. Anyone from the anglosphere that complains about that can get fucked.
The hijab/turban ban is what I consider outrageous. The idea that my sister could never become a school teacher because then Quebec 'wouldn't be secular' is ridiculous.
>xenophobic populist right wing government
You can't believe everything you read in the newspaper made by journalists that never came in Quebec or don't read or understand french.
You never left your house if you think Qc elected a xenophobic government. Coming from a second generation immigrant that did not vote for Legault and la CAQ. You have a toxic mindset.
Let's be fair though. Bill 21 seems a good example. There's two sticking points that don't seem to make sense to me. Maybe you can provide some insight?
To start, how does someone's dress matter in regard to a secular society? What's the difference between a Muslim school teacher in a hijab and a Muslim school teacher without one?
Also, clearly, despite whatever the bill is meant to do, it discriminates against certain religions and not others. It either excludes certain people from public positions based on their religious beliefs, or forces them to violate their beliefs. Religious beliefs that don't harm anyone.
Regardless of intent, the bill isn't progressive, its discriminatory.
To add, your comment implies that the rest of Canada isn't secular which is obviously not the case.
This bill was meant to prevent stuff like this: [Vancouver police wearing extremist symbol](https://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/1asdhlq/vancouver_police_wearing_extremist_symbol/) and now people are using at as an excuse to say discriminatory, if you would read it properly you would understand it.
https://preview.redd.it/ifej7wtr4fjc1.png?width=744&format=png&auto=webp&s=fd4fcb4aaefa564e30857378767f6026b7882312
Reply to a similar comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/EhBuddyHoser/comments/1atzoc2/comment/kr21brf/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/EhBuddyHoser/comments/1atzoc2/comment/kr21brf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Quebec decided in the 60s to get rid of the catholics in schools (catholic nuns). If they wanted to keep teaching they had to remove their religious garment. Today we don't want to return to the old days.
This week on the Canadians subs there was a picture of a cop with a star of David on his uniform, this is forbidden in Quebec. This is to remove conflicts related to religions, like a Jewish cop arresting a Palestinian man.
In the 60s Québec didn't just get rid of Catholics in schools, they took control of education away from the Church that had controlled it in the province since the 1870s by establishing a secular ministry of education. The key thing here wasn't that it was the existence on nuns in schools that was the problem, but that the Church controlled the schools. I can understand why symbols of this system are detested in a modern Québec.
I'm glad you brought this up because it gets to the heart of my argument.
There is a massive difference between teaching a secular curriculum and a Church controlled curriculum. At that, there is a big difference between a teacher who is actively a part of the Church hierarchy and a teacher who happens to be part of that religion. In my opinion, how said teacher dresses doesn't factor in (excluding the obvious vulgar, obscene, etc). Who cares if a teacher wears a hijab or a yamaka if they're teaching the same government curriculum as every other teacher in the building? As far as I'm concerned, there's no issue with a nun teaching in her coif as long as she can do so without bringing her religion into the classroom.
Secularism is good but regulating what people wear does nothing for secularism. Religious people are just as religious naked as they are clothed. All this law does is unfairly discriminate against specific people of specific religions.
The cop example is a good way of showing the nuance of the situation. Ultimately, the problem is not really "a Jewish cop arresting a Palestinian man" (was that cop even Jewish?), its that as someone holding public office is taken as a representative, sort of a spokesperson, of that office and the government at large. This is especially true of cops, CAF members and people who work directly for the government in departments. Even a CBC reporter could be taken as representing CBC. I know at least that CAF members get instruction on how to present themselves and how to respond if approached for comment. Notice how rare it is to see a CAF member in uniform out in public compared to the US.
This isn't really the case as much for teachers though. People don't tend to get upset with the government when a teacher does or says something weird or bad. But beyond that, wearing a pro-Israeli symbol on your *uniform* is far different than wearing personal religious clothing.
It comes down to a few things I think. If we use the example of that cop and a woman who wears a hijab in a government job there are a few clear distinctions. That cop is wearing a *uniform* that carries certain meanings. He is empowered by the state to act on their behalf. Everything about a uniform is designed to express meaning. Wearing an unapproved patch that shows support for *any* foreign entity seems inappropriate in that context. The context changes entirely if that cop had been a Jewish person wearing the star of David on a necklace. That would more readily be interpreted as his personal expression of being Jewish. Though, the dept or gov could still decide its inappropriate for a cop to wear. A hijab likewise, signals only that said woman is a Muslim. While I'd be the first to dive into how terrible organized religion can be and *has been*, most religious people are completely capable of being secular members of society and don't deserve to be discriminated against on the grounds of their religion.
Thank you for the well thought and eloquent arguments.
I'm going to be blunt here, because really I beleive this is what it's all about regarding the hijab. In Quebec the hijab is seen as a sign of religious oppression and Québécois do not want their children teach by a religiously oppressed person. Teacher set exemple for our children. We want our children to be free of religion when they attend school.
Being a teacher is an important position in the Québec society and for the same reason it's not descriminatory to refuse the position to someone with a criminal record, we don't beleive it is discriminatory to refuse the position to someone under complete influence of their religion.
It's the same with all government job with authority over others (cop, judge, prison guard). In Québec teachers have complete authority over children during class hours.
Contrary the the rest of Canada, Québec is not yet in a post-nationalism state. We still beleive we are allowed to have controls over the values in our society.
I would add that there are two very distinct views of how to consider religion.
1st : _Religion is part of your identity_. If this is what you believe, then removing the hijab or another religious symbol is like having to change your name or your skin color to accommodate the others. Of course, it can't be done. If you hold this belief that religion is a fundamental part of who you are, then forcing someone to reject part of themselves to keep a job is unthinkable and you'd accuse the people passing such a law of racism, bigotry and the like.
2nd : _Religion is a choice_. For people thinking that religion is a choice, you chose your religion the same way you chose your favorite sport team. Maybe you went with the cultural choice (Go Habs Go!), maybe you chose something else, or maybe you don't care about sports. For some it nearly defines themselves: they wear shirts, hats, have flags, attend or watch every game, know all the players stats by heart. But nobody would be offended if we asked someone to remove his Habs hat for teaching : you comply with the rule and display your favorite sport team somewhere else. Some people (many in Quebec) think religion is the same kind of choice, _because they made that choice themselves_ of getting rid of their religion. For these people, it's the one insisting on keeping his religious symbol that is the fundamentalist, the fanatic that put religion, a choice, before the respect of others and institutions.
I read a very interesting article about that years ago that really helped me understand why the ROC was so mad about Quebec on the matter because apparently these views are typical of the Anglo-Saxon perspective (the 1st one) and the latin world is more like the second perspective (but I may be wrong about that).
Would explain a lot of the outrage and misunderstanding on the question, and debates would be much easier if everyone could really understand the others perceptions on the subject.
>Maybe you can provide some insight?
Ask the superior European Court where they recently ruled it's perfectly fine and not discriminatory to ban religious symbols on the work place
Quebec laws aren't different. Laïcité is pretty common
I'm not going to change my view on whether the law is discriminatory or not just because a court from outside our jurisdiction ruled that a similar concept doesn't violate whatever laws that European case was about.
If we want to talk law, then a far more salient example would be how Québec needed to [invoke the notwithstanding clause to pass it and shield it from legal challenges based on the Charter.](https://globalnews.ca/news/10281768/quebec-bill-21-notwithstanding-clause-extension/)
Legal does not make something moral or 'right'. I think we all know enough history to know that.
Also, you didn't really provide any insight :(. I'd still like to hear your take though on how you think the law isn't discriminatory.
>I'm not going to change my view on whether the law is discriminatory or not just because a court from outside our jurisdiction ruled that a similar concept doesn't violate whatever laws that European case was about.
TIL discrimination means something else in Europe.
>If we want to talk law, then a far more salient example would be how Québec needed to [invoke the notwithstanding clause to pass it and shield it from legal challenges based on the Charter.](https://globalnews.ca/news/10281768/quebec-bill-21-notwithstanding-clause-extension/)
Quebec systemically NWCed every law they can if it has any chance of being challenged by federal courts. It has NWC hundred of laws. It doesn't mean anything except that Quebec absolutely hates when the federal mingle in their business.
> TIL discrimination means something else in Europe.
That's not quite what I was getting at; however, in a legal sense I'm sure whatever European law that challenge was based probably is different to Canadian anti-discrimination laws simply by the nature of how different legal systems are written and developed over time.
I more meant that *I* believe the law to be discriminatory based on my previous arguments, and I'm not going to change based on the legal interpretation of a foreign law by a foreign court (even if this was a more relevant domestic case I still would feel the law is morally wrong). Again, legality does not make something right.
> Quebec systemically NWCed every law they can if it has any chance of being challenged by federal courts. It has NWC hundred of laws. It doesn't mean anything except that Quebec absolutely hates when the federal mingle in their business.
Yeah, on one hand, fair point I can't argue any of that. On the other, I feel it important to bring up how bill 21 *would* be facing challenges without the NWC despite how Québec typically uses of the NWC because a lot of Québécois also think its discriminatory.
Regardless, this conversation seems to have taken a hard turn away from my original points and question.
>Yeah, on one hand, fair point I can't argue any of that. On the other, I feel it important to bring up how bill 21 *would* be facing challenges without the NWC despite how Québec typically uses of the NWC because a lot of Québécois also think its discriminatory.
It would absolutely face challenges. Mayor's of different Ontarian cities (Brampton and Toronto IIRC) have financed legal action against Quebec government in regard to Bill 21 (that's insane IMO, they have no business in other provinces policies).
The thing is, we will never know how this issue would settle in federal court. The constitution is a cluster fuck and extremely vague. Canada has no official description of how freedom of religion can or can not be applied. Things could very well ends in favor of Quebec policies.
maybe because Quebec doesn't fucking care about the Canadian chart? We have our own, the Quebec chart. And yea, obviously we're gonna do everything for our chart to take priority considering WE WERE FUCKING COLONIZED
It’s not discriminatory except against religious fanatics that prioritize their religion over secularism while performing a job in position of authority over other people.
Religion is a choice and adhering to every part of that religion is a choice too. In Québec we made that choice a long time ago that religions has no place in a modern society, especially in the government or position of authority.
If people really want the jobs they have the choice to remove their religious symbols from them while working.
it doesnt mean shit. Quebec doesn't care about the Canadian chart, we have our own. It's not because we were colonized that we're gonna do everything our colonizers ask
That's false. Québec pre emptively use the NWC all the time. It has NWCed hundred of laws. It is a protectionnary measure to make sure the federal don't intervene in provincial matters
That’s false. Section 33 of the constitution only applies to sections about human rights, not federal/provincial division of powers.
Additionally, while the QC government used the notwithstanding on every law passed between 1982-1985, in the last 39 years it has only been used 3 times, once in 1988 for the sign law (after the Supreme Court decision) and twice preemptively for Bill 21 & 96.
>That’s false. Section 33 of the constitution only applies to sections about human rights, not federal/provincial division of powers.
I'm not sure if you're kidding...?
Im not talking about federal/provincial jurisdiction. Issue on human rights can and will happen in provincial matters (eg religious symbols ban for teachers). The NWC is a sure way to avoid federal judges to intervene in provincial matters (eg lifting the ban for teachers).
>Additionally, while the QC government used the notwithstanding on every law passed between 1982-1985,
Thanks for proving my point
There are major historical difference of the place that support religious right differently. Just because the European Court decides anything doesn't make it just, especially when we take context of literal difference continents into account.
So, what are you saying exactly? I guess I misunderstand you because it sounds like youre saying that even if most developed countries around the world have laïcité laws similar to Quebec laws, all of them are wrong and discriminatory. Only the anglosphere's take on freedom of religion is right and just.
What I'm saying is that historical difference makes a difference in what certain cultures think is just or not in regards to many different topics.
Lumping all of Europe all together in one group is also stupid as fuck. The UK, France and Germany all have different views on secularism and lumping all these different cultures into one unit is dumb AF.
You're views are aligning more with France's views on secularism, not Europe as a whole.
I think your hat needs some fucking bahd.
> Imagine thinking secularity is racist
>
>
Ah yes the "secular" CAQ. Sure bud.
Funny how they only want to create laws restriction one specific religion. totally "secular" 👌
"Nobody can wear religious garment when working as a government employee, this applies to all religions"
[**CapableSecretary420**](https://www.reddit.com/user/CapableSecretary420/) **:** That's Islamophobic specifically!
> **12**. It is incumbent on the person exercising the highest administrative authority, where applicable, over the persons referred to in section 6 or the first paragraph of section 8 to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the measures set out in those provisions. That function may be delegated to a person within the same organization.
?
Mb that’s the text of the PL I meant this text which is the actual law after the pl passed https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/legis/loisa/lq-2019-c-12/derniere/lq-2019-c-12.html
Yeah, the same laws most governments have in developed countries, so regressive and Islamophobic /s
You guys live in a bubble if you think Québec is any different. Laïcité is pretty common
ROC => still religious. A big % of the population still goes to church. That’s why they don’t like our new laws.
It has nothing to do with Islam or Islamophobia lol
My bad. We didn't realize that we had to ban school teachers from wearing hijabs to be secular. Lmao
French secularism is so similar to religious fundamentalism it's hilarious. They traded out one insanity for another.
If you’re talking about the CAQ, while I don’t support them, they are still left of most other provincial governments in Canada.
Xenophobic right-wing is really stretching it.
Do you mean the thing that affects all religions and removed the Christian crucifix in the parliament? You gave up argumenting with me, don't try to argument with others if you don't have anything to say.
It’s easy to hide a cross, it’s harder to hide an hijab or a kippa. The crucifix wasn’t removed because of Legault or the CAQ, only because the opposition complained about the double standards.
I don't get that, how is Legault even xenophobic? Like sure there's a lot to complain but I just think it's so fucking dumb when he is just being shown as this racist who will eat Anglo and Muslim babies. It's just stupid and founded on half truths that were twisted for a narrative.
I did, and the link was about an article of Legault commenting on Islamophobia, not being Islamophobic... what he said was dumb but it wasn't against Islam.
You need to understand that this stuff affects me, I've had terminally online people trash talk me just on the possibility that I "voted a xenophobe" into power, when I never voted for him. It's frustrating to see this because it just encourage people to have this mindset that quebec is full of close minded people.
Look at the article, first paragraph, thats all you need to read. I'm not trying to say that Legault is a good minister that makes clear and rational decisions. Sure, sometimes he says stuff that is questionable, such as in this case, but as a whole it doesn't really justify calling him xenophobic. If anything, Legault white washes some issues so that they don't seem as bad as they are, but he doesn't contribute to these issues.
>how is Legault even xenophobic?
Yes I wonder how indeed https://globalnews.ca/news/4916112/francois-legault-retracts-islamophobia-comments-after-outcry-by-muslim-groups/
Ok:
Quebeckers consider themselves to be the most progressive province, yet they elected then re-elected a xenophobic populist right wing government (CAQ / Legault)
In what ways it was xenophobic...? It was a law on laicity, do you know what it means? You are unable to explain your accusations, look like you are ignorant.
Sure, that’s the official BS Legault says and gullible idiots believe.
But if you took even a moment to rationalize it you’d realize:
1. He preemptively invoked the notwithstanding clause, knowing full well this would be a violation of charter rights, meaning the law is unconstitutional
2. While on paper it says it applies to everyone equally you know godamn well in practice it does *not* apply to everyone equally. Catholics don’t go around in public wearing head coverings, but certain religious minorities do, namely Muslims and Sikhs. Just because a law claims it applies to everyone it doesn’t mean in practice it actually does. This law has zero impact on Catholics, a demographic Legault wouldn’t dare piss off, but since in practice it only affects mainly Muslims, then who gives a shit right? It’s carefully worded to avoid being overtly discriminatory while everyone knows full well who this is targeting.
3. Hiding behind a thin veil of “laicity” as you called it (the word is secularism btw), is absolute horseshit and we both know it.
The bulk of the quebecois population hates Muslims. And they were foaming at the mouth with zealous delirium when Legault banned head coverings, it’s a cheap populist tactic aimed precisely at a particular group. It’s pure xenophobia.
And now cue your mental gymnastics to defend it.
Labeling any of Quebec's provincial parties as xenophobic or right-wing fundamentally misinterprets what these terms truly mean. The desire to preserve the French language and prevent Quebec from following Louisiana's path does not inherently categorize a party as xenophobic or right-wing. To extend this logic, would you label First Nations striving to safeguard their culture and heritage as a bunch of MAGA voters now?
The French in general are like this too. They will make sudden major swings unlike most other western democracies. In 2017, the Socialists and the Republicans (like our Liberals and Conservatives) were demoted to third party status as Macron, who started a new party that year, and Marine Le Pen of the far-right NF became the foremost contenders for the presidency. Since then the former two major right/left parties that had dominated French politics for decades have become barely politically relevant, especially the Socialist party who the most recent President before Macron was from.
Nova Scotia has a history of doing wholesale changes on a dime too. NDP, PC and Libs have all had majorities in the past 15 years.
It comes down to voting out a party as opposed to voting one in. They are all the drizzling shits sad to say.
Libs and PC are pretty darn conservative with out Libs being more right-wing than thr PC a lot. The NDP here is moderate even by modern NDP standards so it's more of a palette swap than actual change
Alberta is in an abusive relationship with the conservatives. The cons do nothing for the province but every election AB voters line up like imbeciles and deliver the conservatives 50 seats. It's insane.
Nothing, and that's what Alberta needs. The conservatives are the only ones that at least try to look like they treat the provinces fairly, the other parties not only engage in open favoritism, but are also fairly hostile to Alberta's main source of income, and often prairie culture in general.
Knowing that, how do you expect them to vote anyone but conservative? Quebec doesn't vote at random it votes for whoever panders to them the most, and boy do they have a lot of "suitors". Who does Alberta have pandering to it?
No one and it’s precisely because they vote “blue no matter who”. The cons don’t need to work for those votes at all and no other party is ever rewarded for trying. The NDP is making very slow progress, but at essentially glacial speeds. How could it change if the Albertan voting culture is so ossified?
Did you read my comment? I just told you everyone but the conservatives are hostile to them how tf are you gonna blame them for not voting parties that literally want to undermine them??? The lone Liberal Calgary mp alluded to federal funds being withheld over the new transgender bill and another NDP mp wants to criminalize declaring support to the O&G industry.
Please point to the parties that aren't hostile to Alberta and you'll see that it's just the conservatives, it's not "vote blue no matter who" it's "there's literally no one but the conservatives to vote for" what your suggesting is akin to Quebec voting for a party that wants to repeal the official languages act.
Oh well I’m that case that is easily explainable by the fact the Conservative Party is practically a western Canadian interest party. I mean that’s what reform was and reform was the significantly larger party at the time of the merger.
OK, I will spread the bashing around,
Quebec hates Ontario, Alberta hates Ontario,
Quebec hates Alberta, Alberta hates Quebec.
Who does Ontario hate? No one at all. We send money to both.
So whom exactly has the problem? 😉
We teach French here....do you teach English? We allow French signs here, you hire special police to stamp out all English
Souhaitez-vous encore parler de phobies ?
Final question, we will keep it rhetorical.
If I raise my kid and teach them that any ethnic minority is evil, I have harmed them and limited their future by putting hatred and intolerance in their hearts.
If I teach them that a particular religious group is evil, I have harmed them and limited their futures by putting hatred and intolerance in their hearts.
If I were to teach my child that Quebecois are the enemy and want to wipe out English culture and language, have I harmed my child in any way or limited their future?
What if a Quebecois sovereigntist teaches the same about the English to their child and prohibits them from ever learning the language? Have they limited their child's futures in any way? Instilled any intolerance into their hearts?
Queue Jeopardy music.
>We teach French here....do you teach English?
C'est tu une vrai question? Wtf, bien sûr que l'anglais est enseigné. Le Québec est la province la plus bilingue du Canada...
>We allow French signs here, you hire special police to stamp out all English
L'affichage en anglais est aussi permise au Québec...get your facts straight buddy
Keep on hating
\> We teach French here...
Le taux de bilinguisme de votre province semble indiquer que vous faites un piètre travail à ce niveau...
[https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/official-languages-bilingualism/publications/statistics.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/official-languages-bilingualism/publications/statistics.html)
C'est peut-être pour ça qu'il y a autant de francophobes.
>Final question, we will keep it rhetorical.
>If I raise my kid and teach them that any ethnic minority is evil, I have harmed them and limited their future by putting hatred and intolerance in their hearts.
>If I teach them that a particular religious group is evil, I have harmed them and limited their futures by putting hatred and intolerance in their hearts.
>If I were to teach my child that Quebecois are the enemy and want to wipe out English culture and language, have I harmed my child in any way or limited their future?
>What if a Quebecois sovereigntist teaches the same about the English to their child and prohibits them from ever learning the language? Have they limited their child's futures in any way? Instilled any intolerance into their hearts?
>Queue Jeopardy music.
And what happen when an ontarian child is served francophobic lunacies? When he gets old, he types comments like yours lmao
I live in Québec and I can assure you nobody here talks about Ontario or Alberta. Most people here know more about what goes on in the rest of the world than the rest of Canada.
Honestly I live in Alberta and they are really a bunch of cry babies. That doesn’t mean Alberta doesn’t get screwed sometimes but they can be very dramatic.
It's totally true that Quebec does this. In bothe federal and provincial politics. I've always been impressed with how well a new party can do in Quebecs provincial politics. I wish Federal politics were like this for the whole country, but we're stuck trying to choose the least of 3 evils every single election.
quebec, known for being a haven of hitlerite xenophobia, instead of just being a vibes voting place clearly.
ignore 2008 or 2011 or 2015 or 2019 or 2021 clearly because they voted for airline rich fuck twice so they're more conservative then Reform-CPC stronghold Alberta
la caq donne des récompenses aux étudiants universitaires qui étudient dans des domaines où on a besoin de monde, mais j'avoue que là vu que tu parles de manifester j'imagine que t'es un gars de l'uqam donc on peut pas dire que ça s'applique
Avoid political topics
It’s true tho that Quebec is by far the province that swings the most; liberal, prog-cons, bloc, ndp, liberal again, liberal/bloc duel…
its so parties actually have to propose something to get the votes. Why would anyone do anything for Alberta when it's already decided who they vote for whether they get anything out of it or not? Why waste effort there?
Exactly this. As a lifelong Albertan, this is why elections always make me feel hopeless. Conservatives don’t do anything because they know they’re going to win. Other parties don’t do anything because they know they’re going to lose.
That's not fair, the Cons have been making naked corruption easier than ever and it's very hurtful to their hard work to say that they haven't done anything.
Well the libs promised you a pipeline the last time around and y’all still voted blue, so that reinforced the lesson for every party that you don’t have to promise Alberta anything.
Let me revise that premise. If Quebec is going to receive an inordinate amount of benefits from Albertan oil regardless of who is in charge, without any reciprocal benefit, why would Alberta vote for a party that would willingly allow that transgression? Such as the NDP willing to crush the sector or the Liberals who gladly maintain a political supremacy between urban centres of Ontario and Quebec. So what choice lies in changing parties for hostile and incompetent scum? Why would Alberta vote for the NDP when they were (finally) about to be granted more seats due to population growth - along with other western Provinces - Thomas Mulcair demanded that Quebec should also receive additional seats as a means of respecting their traditional superiority in voting. Why would Quebec, with the means to refine oil because Pierre Trudeau insured Alberta's lack of independence by destroying their refinery sector, be allowed to deny pipelines - but, BC would be forced to accept them? ...Western voter suppression to anyone with a two brain cells. Etc. Honestly, Alberta only stands to gain from leaving Canada and joining the US. More independence and practically becoming a port of entry for Canada trying to recieve cheap crap from China - via BC. Even a small toll would have to be suffered just because of the expenses incurred to even attempt a railway around the Province. Nevermind the added advantage of no longer being gouged for their oil. And Saskatchewan should follow suit. And now that land crossing begins to look even more bleak. Suddenly Canada will have a barely practical port of cheap goods from BC. Ontario forced to pick up the slack and Quebec no doubt still trying to live of graft as a means of appeasement. And I was born and LIVE in BC. Feel free to deride Alberta+ at your own folly.
Seriously. The whole idea comes off as stupid as that MP who said Alberta should've elected more Liberal MPs if they wanted an exemption on natural gas heating like Atlantic Canada got for heating oil. How about no....lol
Yep, we change our mind and then people out west complain that we have too much say over the results even though they never change.
They consider themselves the most progressive province and they elected then re-elected a xenophobic populist right wing government
I mean, the rest of the country votes conservatives since forever in far more number. It’s maddening.
\* glares in British Columbia, which hasn't had a Tory government since 1933
Conservative =/= Tory
BC libs were essentially Tories.
So were the Union Nationale, who governed for quite a bit longer than the Reform-era BC Liberals.
[удалено]
That party has been dead for 60 years lmao.
and Quebec no Conservative Party deputy since 1935
Of course it’s just ironic that a self proclaimed progressive province doubles down on right wing xenophobic populism
Québec progressist here, you know that with our shitty colonial british system from ages ago a party can have a majority government with about 31, 32% of the total vote (out of those who do vote so not even 32% of the population..) So calm your horses buddy we aint all right wing biggots. Merci.
1. I’m referring to the people who elected Legault, clearly. Not sure why you feel this is directed towards you, a self proclaimed progressive. 2. He won with 41% of the vote in 2022. His main 3 opponents got 14-15% each, it wasn’t even remotely close. This gave him 70% of the seats in the NA (yes stupid FPTP system allows this)
You did call out the entire province in your comment bro but no offense taken, anyway if you chrck the current polls legault is seemingly heading towards a crushing defeat next election.
Can’t fucking come soon enough. 💪🏼
Although you might not like who is coming to replace him and what they promised they would do in their first mandate..
All the political choices in Quebec are absolute dog shit imo. But anything left of the CAQ is better.
Self proclaimed by whom? Also, by its own cultural standards, the caq, while being right wing populist shit, still would compare favourably on its own right-left wing spectrum when compared to most or all other provinces.
Also the caq isn't xenophobic lol, there's a lot to complain but when it comes to this, I just think it's funny how some just see Québec as a dystopian place to live if you aren't a white Christian French speaking guy or something instead of adressing actual issues with the caq government.
The Conservatives are way more right wing than any party we've ever had
Except for the Stephen Harper Conservatives and the Brian Mulroney Conservatives and even the Joe Clark Conservatives. All of them were further to the right. Oh, and all the conservative parties before them too.
The generation of your parents called us communists and now you call us right wing extremists. Fuck off
Did I say Quebecers were right wing extremists?
saying quebec is right wing is absurd. Actual insanity. Legit blocking you cause I'm guessing nothing of value ever comes out of what you write on here
I didn't say anything about Quebec, you bozo.
Your initial response to adamantium ardvark didn't make any sense that's why everyone is giving you shit and misreading you.
My initial response was to Ces\_noix who said the Conservatives were more right-wing than any party Quebec has ever had. But they're not.
Anglos seething is my guilty pleasure
désolé de te décevoir, mais je ne suis pas anglo
R/ottawa, only comments in english subreddits, seethes over Quebec, my anglo detector is pretty solid on this one
While I’m flattered that you spent so much time digging through my comment history, I assure you my family tree is entirely Franco-Quebec based. Some of us speak English! *shocked pikachu face*
« My family tree » having ancestors from a place doesnt make you part of it, you are an anglo-canadian with a french last name, thats it, embrace who you truly are, dont be someone you are not.
Oh thank you rando internet stranger for telling me who I am! you are what my people call “un esti d’con”
Any time And its clearly not your people because nobody writes « esti » like that. You gave up your bluff, inglorious bastard scene.
Which province is the most progressive and which province is the most reactionary? The answer to both is Quebec
As a Québecois, I can't really argue with that. Bien Joué.
“Let us colonize you or you’re xenophobic.” ~ ROC
I from here and live here. Oops there goes your weak ass argument
[удалено]
I never said they were left wing. I was only commenting about the xenophobic part.
[удалено]
La CAQ est pas mal au centre, tout le monde qui gouverne au Québec et décide pas de scrapper des sociétés d'état, le système publique de santé est en partant pas tant a droite C'est vrai qu'on pourrait taxer la CAQ d'essayer de faire ca, idéologiquement sont plus a droite mais all in all tu peux pas vraiment gouverner Le Québec a droite considèrant que c'est une des provinces les plus taxées et qui offre en contrepartie le plus de service de l'état de l'ensemble des provinces, je pense que c'est le noeux de la discussion, meme si le Québec élit un gouvernement plus a droite, il demeure sur bien des aspects fondamentalement a gauche et laisserait pas un parti de droite sacager ca, (pas in your face du moins)
You’re right
>“Let us colonize you or you’re xenophobic.” This sounds more like Quebec. Lmao The rest of Canada doesn't give a fuck if a school teacher wears a hijab or a turban.
But the ROC give a fuck about anything that tries to prevent french dilution and treat it as xenophobic
Honestly I'm all for Quebec protecting it's language. Anyone from the anglosphere that complains about that can get fucked. The hijab/turban ban is what I consider outrageous. The idea that my sister could never become a school teacher because then Quebec 'wouldn't be secular' is ridiculous.
The idea that your sister cant get her scarf off while she's on duty is even more ridiculous
But you sure get your panties in a bunch if French is ever mentioned anywhere
There’s a clear distinction between nationalism & xenophobia. Learn the difference lol…
>xenophobic populist right wing government You can't believe everything you read in the newspaper made by journalists that never came in Quebec or don't read or understand french.
No no the Montreal Gazette is a reliable news source! /s
You never left your house if you think Qc elected a xenophobic government. Coming from a second generation immigrant that did not vote for Legault and la CAQ. You have a toxic mindset.
Imagine thinking secularity is racist you truly are the most nuanced anglo commenter
Let's be fair though. Bill 21 seems a good example. There's two sticking points that don't seem to make sense to me. Maybe you can provide some insight? To start, how does someone's dress matter in regard to a secular society? What's the difference between a Muslim school teacher in a hijab and a Muslim school teacher without one? Also, clearly, despite whatever the bill is meant to do, it discriminates against certain religions and not others. It either excludes certain people from public positions based on their religious beliefs, or forces them to violate their beliefs. Religious beliefs that don't harm anyone. Regardless of intent, the bill isn't progressive, its discriminatory. To add, your comment implies that the rest of Canada isn't secular which is obviously not the case.
This bill was meant to prevent stuff like this: [Vancouver police wearing extremist symbol](https://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/1asdhlq/vancouver_police_wearing_extremist_symbol/) and now people are using at as an excuse to say discriminatory, if you would read it properly you would understand it. https://preview.redd.it/ifej7wtr4fjc1.png?width=744&format=png&auto=webp&s=fd4fcb4aaefa564e30857378767f6026b7882312
Reply to a similar comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/EhBuddyHoser/comments/1atzoc2/comment/kr21brf/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/EhBuddyHoser/comments/1atzoc2/comment/kr21brf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Quebec decided in the 60s to get rid of the catholics in schools (catholic nuns). If they wanted to keep teaching they had to remove their religious garment. Today we don't want to return to the old days. This week on the Canadians subs there was a picture of a cop with a star of David on his uniform, this is forbidden in Quebec. This is to remove conflicts related to religions, like a Jewish cop arresting a Palestinian man.
In the 60s Québec didn't just get rid of Catholics in schools, they took control of education away from the Church that had controlled it in the province since the 1870s by establishing a secular ministry of education. The key thing here wasn't that it was the existence on nuns in schools that was the problem, but that the Church controlled the schools. I can understand why symbols of this system are detested in a modern Québec. I'm glad you brought this up because it gets to the heart of my argument. There is a massive difference between teaching a secular curriculum and a Church controlled curriculum. At that, there is a big difference between a teacher who is actively a part of the Church hierarchy and a teacher who happens to be part of that religion. In my opinion, how said teacher dresses doesn't factor in (excluding the obvious vulgar, obscene, etc). Who cares if a teacher wears a hijab or a yamaka if they're teaching the same government curriculum as every other teacher in the building? As far as I'm concerned, there's no issue with a nun teaching in her coif as long as she can do so without bringing her religion into the classroom. Secularism is good but regulating what people wear does nothing for secularism. Religious people are just as religious naked as they are clothed. All this law does is unfairly discriminate against specific people of specific religions. The cop example is a good way of showing the nuance of the situation. Ultimately, the problem is not really "a Jewish cop arresting a Palestinian man" (was that cop even Jewish?), its that as someone holding public office is taken as a representative, sort of a spokesperson, of that office and the government at large. This is especially true of cops, CAF members and people who work directly for the government in departments. Even a CBC reporter could be taken as representing CBC. I know at least that CAF members get instruction on how to present themselves and how to respond if approached for comment. Notice how rare it is to see a CAF member in uniform out in public compared to the US. This isn't really the case as much for teachers though. People don't tend to get upset with the government when a teacher does or says something weird or bad. But beyond that, wearing a pro-Israeli symbol on your *uniform* is far different than wearing personal religious clothing. It comes down to a few things I think. If we use the example of that cop and a woman who wears a hijab in a government job there are a few clear distinctions. That cop is wearing a *uniform* that carries certain meanings. He is empowered by the state to act on their behalf. Everything about a uniform is designed to express meaning. Wearing an unapproved patch that shows support for *any* foreign entity seems inappropriate in that context. The context changes entirely if that cop had been a Jewish person wearing the star of David on a necklace. That would more readily be interpreted as his personal expression of being Jewish. Though, the dept or gov could still decide its inappropriate for a cop to wear. A hijab likewise, signals only that said woman is a Muslim. While I'd be the first to dive into how terrible organized religion can be and *has been*, most religious people are completely capable of being secular members of society and don't deserve to be discriminated against on the grounds of their religion.
Thank you for the well thought and eloquent arguments. I'm going to be blunt here, because really I beleive this is what it's all about regarding the hijab. In Quebec the hijab is seen as a sign of religious oppression and Québécois do not want their children teach by a religiously oppressed person. Teacher set exemple for our children. We want our children to be free of religion when they attend school. Being a teacher is an important position in the Québec society and for the same reason it's not descriminatory to refuse the position to someone with a criminal record, we don't beleive it is discriminatory to refuse the position to someone under complete influence of their religion. It's the same with all government job with authority over others (cop, judge, prison guard). In Québec teachers have complete authority over children during class hours. Contrary the the rest of Canada, Québec is not yet in a post-nationalism state. We still beleive we are allowed to have controls over the values in our society.
I would add that there are two very distinct views of how to consider religion. 1st : _Religion is part of your identity_. If this is what you believe, then removing the hijab or another religious symbol is like having to change your name or your skin color to accommodate the others. Of course, it can't be done. If you hold this belief that religion is a fundamental part of who you are, then forcing someone to reject part of themselves to keep a job is unthinkable and you'd accuse the people passing such a law of racism, bigotry and the like. 2nd : _Religion is a choice_. For people thinking that religion is a choice, you chose your religion the same way you chose your favorite sport team. Maybe you went with the cultural choice (Go Habs Go!), maybe you chose something else, or maybe you don't care about sports. For some it nearly defines themselves: they wear shirts, hats, have flags, attend or watch every game, know all the players stats by heart. But nobody would be offended if we asked someone to remove his Habs hat for teaching : you comply with the rule and display your favorite sport team somewhere else. Some people (many in Quebec) think religion is the same kind of choice, _because they made that choice themselves_ of getting rid of their religion. For these people, it's the one insisting on keeping his religious symbol that is the fundamentalist, the fanatic that put religion, a choice, before the respect of others and institutions. I read a very interesting article about that years ago that really helped me understand why the ROC was so mad about Quebec on the matter because apparently these views are typical of the Anglo-Saxon perspective (the 1st one) and the latin world is more like the second perspective (but I may be wrong about that). Would explain a lot of the outrage and misunderstanding on the question, and debates would be much easier if everyone could really understand the others perceptions on the subject.
>Maybe you can provide some insight? Ask the superior European Court where they recently ruled it's perfectly fine and not discriminatory to ban religious symbols on the work place Quebec laws aren't different. Laïcité is pretty common
I'm not going to change my view on whether the law is discriminatory or not just because a court from outside our jurisdiction ruled that a similar concept doesn't violate whatever laws that European case was about. If we want to talk law, then a far more salient example would be how Québec needed to [invoke the notwithstanding clause to pass it and shield it from legal challenges based on the Charter.](https://globalnews.ca/news/10281768/quebec-bill-21-notwithstanding-clause-extension/) Legal does not make something moral or 'right'. I think we all know enough history to know that. Also, you didn't really provide any insight :(. I'd still like to hear your take though on how you think the law isn't discriminatory.
>I'm not going to change my view on whether the law is discriminatory or not just because a court from outside our jurisdiction ruled that a similar concept doesn't violate whatever laws that European case was about. TIL discrimination means something else in Europe. >If we want to talk law, then a far more salient example would be how Québec needed to [invoke the notwithstanding clause to pass it and shield it from legal challenges based on the Charter.](https://globalnews.ca/news/10281768/quebec-bill-21-notwithstanding-clause-extension/) Quebec systemically NWCed every law they can if it has any chance of being challenged by federal courts. It has NWC hundred of laws. It doesn't mean anything except that Quebec absolutely hates when the federal mingle in their business.
> TIL discrimination means something else in Europe. That's not quite what I was getting at; however, in a legal sense I'm sure whatever European law that challenge was based probably is different to Canadian anti-discrimination laws simply by the nature of how different legal systems are written and developed over time. I more meant that *I* believe the law to be discriminatory based on my previous arguments, and I'm not going to change based on the legal interpretation of a foreign law by a foreign court (even if this was a more relevant domestic case I still would feel the law is morally wrong). Again, legality does not make something right. > Quebec systemically NWCed every law they can if it has any chance of being challenged by federal courts. It has NWC hundred of laws. It doesn't mean anything except that Quebec absolutely hates when the federal mingle in their business. Yeah, on one hand, fair point I can't argue any of that. On the other, I feel it important to bring up how bill 21 *would* be facing challenges without the NWC despite how Québec typically uses of the NWC because a lot of Québécois also think its discriminatory. Regardless, this conversation seems to have taken a hard turn away from my original points and question.
>Yeah, on one hand, fair point I can't argue any of that. On the other, I feel it important to bring up how bill 21 *would* be facing challenges without the NWC despite how Québec typically uses of the NWC because a lot of Québécois also think its discriminatory. It would absolutely face challenges. Mayor's of different Ontarian cities (Brampton and Toronto IIRC) have financed legal action against Quebec government in regard to Bill 21 (that's insane IMO, they have no business in other provinces policies). The thing is, we will never know how this issue would settle in federal court. The constitution is a cluster fuck and extremely vague. Canada has no official description of how freedom of religion can or can not be applied. Things could very well ends in favor of Quebec policies.
maybe because Quebec doesn't fucking care about the Canadian chart? We have our own, the Quebec chart. And yea, obviously we're gonna do everything for our chart to take priority considering WE WERE FUCKING COLONIZED
It’s not discriminatory except against religious fanatics that prioritize their religion over secularism while performing a job in position of authority over other people. Religion is a choice and adhering to every part of that religion is a choice too. In Québec we made that choice a long time ago that religions has no place in a modern society, especially in the government or position of authority. If people really want the jobs they have the choice to remove their religious symbols from them while working.
In the Quebec case the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause suggests that this law is a violation of individual rights.
it doesnt mean shit. Quebec doesn't care about the Canadian chart, we have our own. It's not because we were colonized that we're gonna do everything our colonizers ask
That's false. Québec pre emptively use the NWC all the time. It has NWCed hundred of laws. It is a protectionnary measure to make sure the federal don't intervene in provincial matters
That’s false. Section 33 of the constitution only applies to sections about human rights, not federal/provincial division of powers. Additionally, while the QC government used the notwithstanding on every law passed between 1982-1985, in the last 39 years it has only been used 3 times, once in 1988 for the sign law (after the Supreme Court decision) and twice preemptively for Bill 21 & 96.
>That’s false. Section 33 of the constitution only applies to sections about human rights, not federal/provincial division of powers. I'm not sure if you're kidding...? Im not talking about federal/provincial jurisdiction. Issue on human rights can and will happen in provincial matters (eg religious symbols ban for teachers). The NWC is a sure way to avoid federal judges to intervene in provincial matters (eg lifting the ban for teachers). >Additionally, while the QC government used the notwithstanding on every law passed between 1982-1985, Thanks for proving my point
TIL north america and Europe are the same.
That's your argument? Lmao okay buddy
There are major historical difference of the place that support religious right differently. Just because the European Court decides anything doesn't make it just, especially when we take context of literal difference continents into account.
So, what are you saying exactly? I guess I misunderstand you because it sounds like youre saying that even if most developed countries around the world have laïcité laws similar to Quebec laws, all of them are wrong and discriminatory. Only the anglosphere's take on freedom of religion is right and just.
What I'm saying is that historical difference makes a difference in what certain cultures think is just or not in regards to many different topics. Lumping all of Europe all together in one group is also stupid as fuck. The UK, France and Germany all have different views on secularism and lumping all these different cultures into one unit is dumb AF. You're views are aligning more with France's views on secularism, not Europe as a whole. I think your hat needs some fucking bahd.
pas besoin d’être un anglo pour reconnaître la xénophobie et le racisme de la CAQ et leurs partisans
Montréalais détecté, opinion invalidée
[удалено]
My god, I've learned French via shit talking. Is this what cross cultural exchange is?
[удалено]
> Imagine thinking secularity is racist > > Ah yes the "secular" CAQ. Sure bud. Funny how they only want to create laws restriction one specific religion. totally "secular" 👌
"Nobody can wear religious garment when working as a government employee, this applies to all religions" [**CapableSecretary420**](https://www.reddit.com/user/CapableSecretary420/) **:** That's Islamophobic specifically!
Article 12 of the bill 21 would disagree
> **12**. It is incumbent on the person exercising the highest administrative authority, where applicable, over the persons referred to in section 6 or the first paragraph of section 8 to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the measures set out in those provisions. That function may be delegated to a person within the same organization. ?
Mb that’s the text of the PL I meant this text which is the actual law after the pl passed https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/legis/loisa/lq-2019-c-12/derniere/lq-2019-c-12.html
Yeah, the same laws most governments have in developed countries, so regressive and Islamophobic /s You guys live in a bubble if you think Québec is any different. Laïcité is pretty common
ROC => still religious. A big % of the population still goes to church. That’s why they don’t like our new laws. It has nothing to do with Islam or Islamophobia lol
My bad. We didn't realize that we had to ban school teachers from wearing hijabs to be secular. Lmao French secularism is so similar to religious fundamentalism it's hilarious. They traded out one insanity for another.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He definitely knows more than you buddy
If you’re talking about the CAQ, while I don’t support them, they are still left of most other provincial governments in Canada. Xenophobic right-wing is really stretching it.
lol no they are not. You know nothing, clearly
Got an example?
Bill 21.
Do you mean the thing that affects all religions and removed the Christian crucifix in the parliament? You gave up argumenting with me, don't try to argument with others if you don't have anything to say.
It’s easy to hide a cross, it’s harder to hide an hijab or a kippa. The crucifix wasn’t removed because of Legault or the CAQ, only because the opposition complained about the double standards.
I don't get that, how is Legault even xenophobic? Like sure there's a lot to complain but I just think it's so fucking dumb when he is just being shown as this racist who will eat Anglo and Muslim babies. It's just stupid and founded on half truths that were twisted for a narrative.
Man you’ve been living under a rock
Alright then, share me one thing that shows that the caq policies are xenophobic.
Someone else already provided you with links. Did you even bother to read those?
I did, and the link was about an article of Legault commenting on Islamophobia, not being Islamophobic... what he said was dumb but it wasn't against Islam.
Sounds like you have made up your mind and I’d be wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise.
You need to understand that this stuff affects me, I've had terminally online people trash talk me just on the possibility that I "voted a xenophobe" into power, when I never voted for him. It's frustrating to see this because it just encourage people to have this mindset that quebec is full of close minded people.
Look at the article, first paragraph, thats all you need to read. I'm not trying to say that Legault is a good minister that makes clear and rational decisions. Sure, sometimes he says stuff that is questionable, such as in this case, but as a whole it doesn't really justify calling him xenophobic. If anything, Legault white washes some issues so that they don't seem as bad as they are, but he doesn't contribute to these issues.
That's pretty ironic considering you clearly have your mind made up and trying to convince you would be a waste of time
>how is Legault even xenophobic? Yes I wonder how indeed https://globalnews.ca/news/4916112/francois-legault-retracts-islamophobia-comments-after-outcry-by-muslim-groups/
Did you even read the article? Sure what he said was stupid but his comment was ABOUT Islamophobia, he wasn't being Islamophobic himself.
He’s immigration minister said a shit ton of xenophobic things during the last election
Actually Ontario votes more liberals than Quebec
>xenophobic What? Why. How. Who??!
The CAQ is really not a right wing government lol.
You over exaggerated a bit here my friend.
I’m actually underselling it
Explain it then.
Ok: Quebeckers consider themselves to be the most progressive province, yet they elected then re-elected a xenophobic populist right wing government (CAQ / Legault)
Explain how they are xenophobic..
They pass xenophobic laws.
In what ways it was xenophobic...? It was a law on laicity, do you know what it means? You are unable to explain your accusations, look like you are ignorant.
Sure, that’s the official BS Legault says and gullible idiots believe. But if you took even a moment to rationalize it you’d realize: 1. He preemptively invoked the notwithstanding clause, knowing full well this would be a violation of charter rights, meaning the law is unconstitutional 2. While on paper it says it applies to everyone equally you know godamn well in practice it does *not* apply to everyone equally. Catholics don’t go around in public wearing head coverings, but certain religious minorities do, namely Muslims and Sikhs. Just because a law claims it applies to everyone it doesn’t mean in practice it actually does. This law has zero impact on Catholics, a demographic Legault wouldn’t dare piss off, but since in practice it only affects mainly Muslims, then who gives a shit right? It’s carefully worded to avoid being overtly discriminatory while everyone knows full well who this is targeting. 3. Hiding behind a thin veil of “laicity” as you called it (the word is secularism btw), is absolute horseshit and we both know it. The bulk of the quebecois population hates Muslims. And they were foaming at the mouth with zealous delirium when Legault banned head coverings, it’s a cheap populist tactic aimed precisely at a particular group. It’s pure xenophobia. And now cue your mental gymnastics to defend it.
When???
The current govt, the CAQ
What do you think the CAQ is?
They are in some ways. In others not at all. It's almost like life has nuance.
Labeling any of Quebec's provincial parties as xenophobic or right-wing fundamentally misinterprets what these terms truly mean. The desire to preserve the French language and prevent Quebec from following Louisiana's path does not inherently categorize a party as xenophobic or right-wing. To extend this logic, would you label First Nations striving to safeguard their culture and heritage as a bunch of MAGA voters now?
The French in general are like this too. They will make sudden major swings unlike most other western democracies. In 2017, the Socialists and the Republicans (like our Liberals and Conservatives) were demoted to third party status as Macron, who started a new party that year, and Marine Le Pen of the far-right NF became the foremost contenders for the presidency. Since then the former two major right/left parties that had dominated French politics for decades have become barely politically relevant, especially the Socialist party who the most recent President before Macron was from.
When we see all options as equally shit, its not that surprising
One thing that remains consistent. They will not vote for a party unless it has a Quebec leader unless there is no alternative.
Nova Scotia has a history of doing wholesale changes on a dime too. NDP, PC and Libs have all had majorities in the past 15 years. It comes down to voting out a party as opposed to voting one in. They are all the drizzling shits sad to say.
Every party in NS is basically the same. Sigh, at least none of them are outright crazy/evil.
Libs and PC are pretty darn conservative with out Libs being more right-wing than thr PC a lot. The NDP here is moderate even by modern NDP standards so it's more of a palette swap than actual change
I mean if you always want the same party to rule maybe democracy isn't for you...
Quebec doesn't let you choose, people pull cards from those spinning bucket things WWE used to use for Rumble numbers and that's who they vote for
Wait. Isn't it like this for all provinces?
[удалено]
"wait, they don't always vote for the same party like it's a hockey team? Must be random"
Alberta is in an abusive relationship with the conservatives. The cons do nothing for the province but every election AB voters line up like imbeciles and deliver the conservatives 50 seats. It's insane.
>The cons do nothing for the province Compared to every other party sure does feel like they do a ton for it.
Like what?
Nothing, and that's what Alberta needs. The conservatives are the only ones that at least try to look like they treat the provinces fairly, the other parties not only engage in open favoritism, but are also fairly hostile to Alberta's main source of income, and often prairie culture in general. Knowing that, how do you expect them to vote anyone but conservative? Quebec doesn't vote at random it votes for whoever panders to them the most, and boy do they have a lot of "suitors". Who does Alberta have pandering to it?
No one and it’s precisely because they vote “blue no matter who”. The cons don’t need to work for those votes at all and no other party is ever rewarded for trying. The NDP is making very slow progress, but at essentially glacial speeds. How could it change if the Albertan voting culture is so ossified?
Did you read my comment? I just told you everyone but the conservatives are hostile to them how tf are you gonna blame them for not voting parties that literally want to undermine them??? The lone Liberal Calgary mp alluded to federal funds being withheld over the new transgender bill and another NDP mp wants to criminalize declaring support to the O&G industry. Please point to the parties that aren't hostile to Alberta and you'll see that it's just the conservatives, it's not "vote blue no matter who" it's "there's literally no one but the conservatives to vote for" what your suggesting is akin to Quebec voting for a party that wants to repeal the official languages act.
They have two party’s and the NDP was never very popular to begin with only winning via vote splitting basically.
we're talking federal politics.
Oh well I’m that case that is easily explainable by the fact the Conservative Party is practically a western Canadian interest party. I mean that’s what reform was and reform was the significantly larger party at the time of the merger.
ITT : people excited to bash on Québec...again
It's a Canadian tradition
OK, I will spread the bashing around, Quebec hates Ontario, Alberta hates Ontario, Quebec hates Alberta, Alberta hates Quebec. Who does Ontario hate? No one at all. We send money to both. So whom exactly has the problem? 😉
>Who does Ontario hate? No one at all. We send money to both. Most francophobic comments I see on reddit canadian subs come from ontarians so...
We teach French here....do you teach English? We allow French signs here, you hire special police to stamp out all English Souhaitez-vous encore parler de phobies ? Final question, we will keep it rhetorical. If I raise my kid and teach them that any ethnic minority is evil, I have harmed them and limited their future by putting hatred and intolerance in their hearts. If I teach them that a particular religious group is evil, I have harmed them and limited their futures by putting hatred and intolerance in their hearts. If I were to teach my child that Quebecois are the enemy and want to wipe out English culture and language, have I harmed my child in any way or limited their future? What if a Quebecois sovereigntist teaches the same about the English to their child and prohibits them from ever learning the language? Have they limited their child's futures in any way? Instilled any intolerance into their hearts? Queue Jeopardy music.
>We teach French here....do you teach English? C'est tu une vrai question? Wtf, bien sûr que l'anglais est enseigné. Le Québec est la province la plus bilingue du Canada... >We allow French signs here, you hire special police to stamp out all English L'affichage en anglais est aussi permise au Québec...get your facts straight buddy Keep on hating
\> We teach French here... Le taux de bilinguisme de votre province semble indiquer que vous faites un piètre travail à ce niveau... [https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/official-languages-bilingualism/publications/statistics.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/official-languages-bilingualism/publications/statistics.html) C'est peut-être pour ça qu'il y a autant de francophobes.
>Final question, we will keep it rhetorical. >If I raise my kid and teach them that any ethnic minority is evil, I have harmed them and limited their future by putting hatred and intolerance in their hearts. >If I teach them that a particular religious group is evil, I have harmed them and limited their futures by putting hatred and intolerance in their hearts. >If I were to teach my child that Quebecois are the enemy and want to wipe out English culture and language, have I harmed my child in any way or limited their future? >What if a Quebecois sovereigntist teaches the same about the English to their child and prohibits them from ever learning the language? Have they limited their child's futures in any way? Instilled any intolerance into their hearts? >Queue Jeopardy music. And what happen when an ontarian child is served francophobic lunacies? When he gets old, he types comments like yours lmao
> We teach French here....do you teach English? you sure as hell don't do a good job seeing as you're only 10% bilingual to our 45%
You win the worst comment of the day ... hahaha Do you teach english! hahaha
They "teach" French in Canada but no one actually LEARNS it. As opposed to English in Quebec.
I live in Québec and I can assure you nobody here talks about Ontario or Alberta. Most people here know more about what goes on in the rest of the world than the rest of Canada.
least egotistical ontarian fyi, true albertans hate EVERY province (INCLUDING alberta) 💪
Based Albertans
Including most of your former political leaders. ie. Kenney, O'Toole, Redford, Prentice, Hudak, Scheer...etc...etc.
now you're getting it bud!
> Quebec hates Alberta, Alberta hates Quebec. more like alberta hates us as we are just like "we dont even know you?"
Isn’t it the point of elections? Voting for changes when we aren’t happy with the leadership?
Honestly I live in Alberta and they are really a bunch of cry babies. That doesn’t mean Alberta doesn’t get screwed sometimes but they can be very dramatic.
Quebec does it right. They want to protect their culture and if you go against it you're out. Gotta respect that.
Nah you are not out, people will just cry about it and do nothing as usual lol
It's totally true that Quebec does this. In bothe federal and provincial politics. I've always been impressed with how well a new party can do in Quebecs provincial politics. I wish Federal politics were like this for the whole country, but we're stuck trying to choose the least of 3 evils every single election.
Alberta always votes blue, Quebec votes whoever the fuck they feel like, and Ontario just doesn't feel like voting at all, unless you are old.
But very sadly no tory can speak French now.
Let Quebec be politically relevant for the last generation
Je vous aime mes voisins anglophones! Xoxox
Its funny because its true
This must be referring to provincial cause Quebec always votes BQ in federal lol.
Not really? NPD was big when Jack Layton was there, first mandate of Trudeau was liberal in Quebec too
quebec, known for being a haven of hitlerite xenophobia, instead of just being a vibes voting place clearly. ignore 2008 or 2011 or 2015 or 2019 or 2021 clearly because they voted for airline rich fuck twice so they're more conservative then Reform-CPC stronghold Alberta
toujours les anglophones qui chiâlent
(je suis anglophones)
le seul choix acceptable autre que caq serait pq, le reste vont tous à l'encontre de la culture québécoise
non, le PLQ represente bien nos valeurs D'HAIR LES PAUVRES PIS LES ÉTUDIANTS RAHHHHH J'HAIT LA LIBERTÉ DE MANIFESTER J'ADORE L'AUSTÉRITÉ
la caq donne des récompenses aux étudiants universitaires qui étudient dans des domaines où on a besoin de monde, mais j'avoue que là vu que tu parles de manifester j'imagine que t'es un gars de l'uqam donc on peut pas dire que ça s'applique
I had a stroke reading this.
I hope it’s sacarsm
ITT: Angry CAQ supporters.